"In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty."

In that argument, the author also draws a comparison with those most committed to maintaining segregation; presumably, he was referring to those who physically attacked and sometimes killed both African-Americans and white anti-segregation civil rights workers, secretly and under the cloak of darkness. According to Dr. King, one of the hallmarks of justified civil disobedience is that those whose defiance of laws is genuinely a function of their principled objection to laws that are unjust do so openly and unashamedly rather than secretly. The author further explains the basic logic of this conclusion:

"I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."

In that passage, Dr. King argues that the highest moral concern of improving society and protecting those whose interests are not adequately protected by existing law is far more important than any moral obligation to obey unjust laws. The author also directly addresses the notion that laws are also susceptible to being unjust by virtue of the manner in which they are established by illegitimate or immoral legislative authority. This is another logical argument that formal laws are not necessarily just simply as a result as having succeeded in becoming laws because that legislative process is hardly immune to immoral objectives or to moral corruption of the processes.

"A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising...

Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected?"
Dr. King repeatedly criticized the relative non-involvement of respected members of the majority (i.e. white) community who professed to sympathize with the plight and objectives of African-Americans while simultaneously criticising Dr. King's methods as "radical" or "extreme."

"You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At fist I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist."

The author used both the logical appeal in the following passage, as well as a more emotional appeal in others.

"I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress."

In this passage, Dr. King further justifies the logic of his thesis that unjust laws justify civil disobedience and non-violent defiance. The logical argument is simply that unjust laws fail to satisfy the essential purpose of manmade laws: to establish justice. Therefore, by definition, the opposition to laws that violate this purpose (whether by design or application) justify opposition through civil disobedience and defiance.

In combination, the author argued quite convincingly that: (1) laws are not necessarily always just, (2) just laws can be applied unjustly, (3) morally justified civil disobedience motivated by moral principle is characterized by open rather than secret disobedience, (4) laws established through unjust legislative processes are unjust, (5) civil disobedience to unjust laws is a moral requirement rather than "extremism," and (6) that passive acceptance of unjust laws and social circumstances is tantamount to supporting them.